36bit still in use ?
rhirst at xkl.com
Thu Dec 4 10:59:44 CST 2014
Although here at XKL we don't still use TOAD-1s in the business, we do
have a few engineers here in R&D that are bit-level familiar with the
beast, even tho' the last living instance I believe is now at the Museum.
I'd need to stay well clear of anything XKL-proprietary, but I would be
happy to interview them and to put together a technical briefing on
stuff we can talk about. Would take me a week. Let me know if that would
help, and if there's any doc gaps that I might help fill. I'm new to
this forum, I can't tell what level of reverse engineering folk are
aiming at, are folk pursuing emulators, simulators, what? Does the
Museum provide some kind of a reverse-engineered BOM? I don't know where
you would actually buy a TOAD-1 (almost certainly not from us, I think,
but I will check) and our last one I suspect is the one proud in baby
blue on the Museum's video.
*Roy Hirst* | 425-556-5773 | 425-324-0941 cell
XKL LLC | 12020 113th Ave NE, Suite 100 | Kirkland, WA 98034 | USA
On 12/4/2014 3:03 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2014-12-04 08:25, Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
>> Pontus <pontus at update.uu.se> writes:
>>> Perhaps you could elaborate on the compatibility between the TOAD
>>> versions and other PDP-10 processors. Also what operating systems do
>>> they run, both previous and current versions?
>> I'll contribute the technical information I have. Happy to take
>> corrections or additions!
>> The TOAD-1 was XKL's first PDP-10 clone, created around 1994.
>> The CPU is called XKL-1, and is a model B with an extended virtual (30
>> bits) and physical address (33 bits) space compared to the KL10 model
>> B. It's clocked at 33 MHz, and has 128K of cache and 8K TLB entries.
>> The microcode control store has 8K 128-bit words.
>> Similar information for more 10s here:
> As far as I can recall, the TOAD-1 is not compatible with the KL10B. I
> don't remember what the differences were, but I understood that
> TOPS-20 had to be modified in an incompatible way to run on it. Which
> was unfortunate, in that SC also made extensions, but they were more
> in line with how the KL10B works. So we got two different branches
> when the architecture was expanded from the KL10B. Unfortunately I
> don't remember if it was the paging system or the I/O system where
> they diverged.
> Someone who knows more details who can correct me on this?
The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure.
If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited.
If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at the above e-mail address.
More information about the cctech